[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

Nos. 13-10807 & 13-13047

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A096-514-033

GERSON NOEL ALBORNOZ SOLANO, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petitions for Review of Decisions of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(September 30, 2014)

Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-10807 Date Filed: 09/30/2014 Page: 1 of 14 
2

Gerson Noel Albornoz Solano (“Albornoz”) seeks review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) (1) order denying his motion to reopen his 

removal proceedings, filed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), and (2) order denying 

his motion to reconsider the BIA’s prior denial of reopening, filed pursuant to

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b). After review, we deny Albornoz’s petitions for review, 

which were consolidated as this one appeal. 

I. BACKGROUND

A. 2008-2011 Removal Proceedings

Albornoz is a native and citizen of Venezuela. In February 2002, Albornoz 

arrived in Miami as a nonimmigrant visitor with authorization to remain until 

February 4, 2003. On January 2, 2008, Albornoz was served with a Notice to 

Appear, charging him with removability as an alien who had remained in the 

United States for a time longer than permitted, under Immigration and Nationality 

Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). 

Albornoz filed a pro se application seeking asylum, withholding of removal, 

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), based on his political 

opinion and his membership in political groups. Albornoz claimed that he feared 

he would be harmed if returned to Venezuela because of his work against the 

government of President Hugo Chavez and his beliefs in freedom of expression 

and democracy. Albornoz also indicated that he had married his now ex-wife, a 

Case: 13-10807 Date Filed: 09/30/2014 Page: 2 of 14 
3

United States citizen, in 2005. Albornoz submitted evidence to support his claim 

that he had been tortured, beaten, threatened, and detained for opposing the Chavez 

government. 

On April 22, 2008, Albornoz conceded removability. On June 1, 2010, an 

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granted Albornoz’s motion to substitute Claudia Del 

Castillo-Hronsky as his attorney. Castillo-Hronsky was Albornoz’s third attorney.1

 

During his removal hearing on January 12, 2011, Albornoz testified that, on 

December 16, 2001, two men attacked, kidnapped, and, after drinking alcohol,

sexually abused him. The men told Albornoz that it was “a consequence of [his] 

work against the government of Chavez.” On cross-examination, Albornoz 

admitted that he had not told the asylum officer that he had been sexually abused. 

The IJ found that Albornoz’s asylum claim was time-barred, and, in any 

event, his testimony was not credible or plausible. Albornoz did not provide

sufficient detail to establish that he would be singled out by the Chavez 

government over other political dissidents, and made inconsistent and inaccurate 

statements concerning his past mistreatment. Accordingly, the IJ denied 

Albornoz’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. On 

January 23, 2012, the BIA agreed with the IJ’s adverse credibility determination 

and dismissed Albornoz’s appeal. 

 

1

Prior to Castillo-Hronsky, Albornoz retained Anthony Alvarez and then Juan Gonzalez 

as counsel. 

Case: 13-10807 Date Filed: 09/30/2014 Page: 3 of 14 
4

B. 2012 Motion to Reopen

Over nine months later, on November 9, 2012, Albornoz filed a counseled 

motion to reopen proceedings, asserting that his former counsel, Castillo-Hronsky, 

rendered ineffective assistance. In addition to alleging a general failure to prepare 

and communicate regarding his case, Albornoz argued that Castillo-Hronsky 

materially prejudiced the outcome by failing to investigate and pursue an asylum 

claim based on Albornoz’s homosexuality. 

Before discussing Albornoz’s 2012 motion to reopen, we note that neither 

Albornoz’s 2008 asylum application, nor his 2011 testimony, asserted or even 

alluded to his sexual orientation or any alleged persecution based on sexual 

orientation. 

In his 2012 motion to reopen, Albornoz for the first time claimed that he was 

persecuted in Venezuela in 2001 because of his sexual orientation. Albornoz

recounted that in Venezuela (1) in January 2001, he was physically assaulted and 

called a “faggot,” and (2) that, in the above attack on December 16, 2001, where 

Chavez’s men beat, kidnapped, and brutally gang raped Albornoz, Chavez’s men 

called him a “fag” and forced him to perform oral sex on them. While Albornoz’s 

testimony in the removal hearing had referenced this December 16, 2001 attack by 

Chavez’s men, Albornoz’s motion to reopen now added that Chavez’s men called 

Case: 13-10807 Date Filed: 09/30/2014 Page: 4 of 14 
5

him these names and forced him to perform oral sex. Thus, Albornoz now 

contended Chavez’s men believed he was a homosexual. Albornoz’s motion to 

reopen asserted that counsel Castillo-Hronsky unreasonably failed to make a claim 

for asylum relief based on his real or perceived sexual orientation. Alternatively, 

Albornoz asked the BIA to exercise its discretion and reopen his proceedings. 

Albornoz’s motion also indicated that he had been with his partner William 

Kammer since 2006 and that Kammer had attended and participated in his 

meetings with Castillo-Hronsky. Albornoz also filed numerous documents in 

support of his motion to reopen, including his own affidavit, Kammer’s affidavit, 

and an email from Castillo-Hronsky responding to Albornoz’s allegations of 

ineffective assistance. Albornoz also submitted articles and reports discussing the 

mistreatment of homosexuals in Venezuela. 

In his affidavit, Albornoz affirmed that, based on his interaction with 

Kammer during his meetings with Castillo-Hronsky, any reasonable person would 

have known they were a couple. According to Albornoz, he had informed CastilloHronsky of the December 16, 2001 gang-rape incident by Chavez’s men during 

their fourth meeting, but she failed to follow up on the matter. Notably, in his 

motion to reopen and affidavit, Albornoz stated that he told Castillo-Hronsky that 

he was “gang-raped” but did not allege that he specifically told Castillo-Hronsky 

about Chavez’s men calling him a “fag” or a “faggot,” or about the forced oral sex. 

Case: 13-10807 Date Filed: 09/30/2014 Page: 5 of 14 
6

Castillo-Hronsky never told Albornoz that he might be eligible for relief based on 

his homosexuality. Because her questioning during his removal hearing pertained 

only to the information in his asylum application, Albornoz did not explain to the 

IJ that the motivation for the gang rape and torture could have been based on his 

sexual orientation as well as his political opinion. 

Kammer, who was significantly older than Albornoz, affirmed in his 

affidavit that Castillo-Hronsky had never asked about Albornoz’s sexual 

orientation or the nature of his relationship with Kammer. Kammer also stated that 

such inquiry was unnecessary because it was obvious that the two men were 

romantically involved. 

In her email, filed by Albornoz with his motion to reopen, Castillo-Hronsky

stated that she did not know Albornoz was homosexual at the time of the 

representation, as Albornoz had never told her that he was homosexual or that he 

had been persecuted for that reason. An elderly man, whom Albornoz described as 

his friend and boss and whom Castillo-Hronsky believed to be a concerned father 

figure, had accompanied Albornoz to Castillo-Hronsky’s office and paid 

Albornoz’s legal fees. Castillo-Hronsky believed that Albornoz’s sexual 

orientation was irrelevant in light of his prior marriage to a woman and Albornoz’s

continued representations to her that he had been persecuted only because of his 

political opinion. 

Case: 13-10807 Date Filed: 09/30/2014 Page: 6 of 14 
7

On January 25, 2013, the BIA denied Albornoz’s November 9, 2012 motion 

to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s 

January 23, 2012 decision. See INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (providing that a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days 

of the entry of a final removal order). The BIA noted that the filing deadline may 

be tolled in certain cases showing ineffective assistance of counsel, but Albornoz 

had made no claim that equitable tolling applied to excuse his untimely motion. 

Further, Albornoz did not specifically assert that his ineffective-assistance claim 

warranted reopening sua sponte or submit evidence of any exceptional 

circumstance that would warrant such action.

Nevertheless, the BIA went on to address the merits of Albornoz’s 

ineffective-assistance claim based on Castillo-Hronsky’s alleged failure to inform 

Albornoz that his homosexuality could be a basis for asylum relief. Notably, the 

BIA explained, Albornoz did not allege in his motion to reopen or accompanying 

affidavit that he had ever informed Castillo-Hronsky that he was homosexual, only 

that she should have known. Nor did Albornoz challenge Castillo-Hronsky’s 

statements that she did not know of his homosexuality and that Albornoz had told 

her that Kammer was his friend and boss, and that Albornoz was previously 

married to a woman. 

Case: 13-10807 Date Filed: 09/30/2014 Page: 7 of 14 
8

The BIA concluded that the totality of the evidence did not establish 

incompetent representation by Castillo-Hronsky. Moreover, Albornoz failed to 

show the requisite prejudice, as he did not specifically assert that Castillo-Hronsky 

was at fault for the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Even if Albornoz had testified 

that he was persecuted in 2001 based on his sexual orientation as well as his 

political opinion, the outcome would not likely have been different. For these 

reasons, Albornoz failed to demonstrate an exceptional situation that would 

warrant reopening sua sponte. 

C. 2013 Motion to Reconsider

Albornoz filed a motion to reconsider the BIA’s denial of his motion to 

reopen, in which he raised three arguments. First, Albornoz’s motion to reconsider 

asserted Albornoz was entitled to equitable tolling of the 90-day deadline to file a 

motion to reopen based on his ineffective-assistance claim. Albornoz 

acknowledged that he had not raised the equitable tolling issue previously in his 

2012 motion to reopen because equitable tolling was prohibited at that time and 

until this Court subsequently ruled in Avila-Santoyo v. U.S. Attorney General, 713 

F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2013) (en banc). 

Second, Albornoz argued that the BIA should have sua sponte reopened the 

case based on the “substantial and credible” evidence presented in Albornoz’s

motion to reopen, supporting his claim that Castillo-Hronsky’s failure to identify 

Case: 13-10807 Date Filed: 09/30/2014 Page: 8 of 14 
9

actual or imputed sexual orientation as a ground for relief constituted deficient 

performance. Albornoz claimed the BIA’s previous decision relied on 

“speculation and conjecture” and ignored that Albornoz was gang raped and forced 

to perform oral sex on Chavez’s men, and that these known facts should have 

alerted Castillo-Hronsky that she needed to develop a claim based on his sexual 

orientation or imputed sexual orientation. Third, Albornoz argued that the BIA

erred in requiring Albornoz to overcome an adverse credibility finding in a 

proceeding tainted by ineffective assistance. 

On June 5, 2013, the BIA denied Albornoz’s motion to reconsider. The BIA 

recognized that the law as to equitable tolling had changed in Avila-Santoyo and 

assumed, without deciding, that equitable tolling applied to Albornoz’s earlier 

motion to reopen, making it timely filed.

2

 

As to the merits issues, however, the BIA concluded that Albornoz did not 

identify any errors of fact or law in its prior merits decision on the motion to 

reopen, which addressed Albornoz’s ineffective-assistance claim and concluded 

 

2

Several months after the BIA denied Albornoz’s motion to reopen, but before Albornoz 

filed his initial brief in this Court, this Court held in Avila-Santoyo v. U.S. Attorney General, 713 

F.3d 1357, 1364-65 (11th Cir. 2013) (en banc), that the 90-day filing deadline for a motion to 

reopen is subject to equitable tolling. The BIA did assume equitable tolling could apply when it 

ruled on Albornoz’s subsequent motion to reconsider, and, thus, it is unnecessary for us to 

remand the case to the BIA for a determination of whether Albornoz is entitled to equitable 

tolling in light of Avila-Santoyo. In denying Albornoz’s motion to reconsider, the BIA assumed 

that the 90-day filing deadline was tolled but nonetheless ruled on the merits of Albornoz’s 

ineffective-assistance claim and found that Albornoz failed to show any error in its analysis of 

the merits of his ineffective-assistance claim, and, thus, reconsideration was unwarranted. 

Case: 13-10807 Date Filed: 09/30/2014 Page: 9 of 14 
10

that he failed to show that Castillo-Hronsky provided incompetent representation. 

In particular, the BIA noted that Albornoz contends that the BIA’s prior decision 

on the motion to reopen did not analyze his claim that Castillo-Hronsky should 

have explored an asylum application based on “imputed sexual orientation.” In his 

motion to reconsider, Albornoz argued that even if Castillo-Hronsky did not know 

he was homosexual, she nevertheless should have explored a claim based on 

imputed sexual orientation because Albornoz had told her he was gang raped and 

forced to perform oral sex on Chavez’s men. 

The BIA rejected Albornoz’s argument, noting he failed to raise this claim in 

his earlier motion to reopen. Specifically, Albornoz’s motion to reopen did allege 

that Chavez’s men forced him to perform oral sex and called him a “fag” and a 

“faggot.” But that motion to reopen did not contend that Albornoz had told 

Castillo-Hronsky about the oral sex or name calling or that Castillo-Hronsky 

should have known of his sexual orientation because of the oral sex or name 

calling. Further, the BIA stressed that, at his removal hearing, Albornoz

specifically testified that he was told by his attackers that he was targeted because 

of his work against Chavez’s government. Thus, Albornoz’s testimony at the 

removal hearing did not suggest a claim that his attackers had imputed 

homosexuality to him or that his actual or imputed homosexuality was sufficiently

related to the attack so as to qualify Albornoz for asylum relief. 

Case: 13-10807 Date Filed: 09/30/2014 Page: 10 of 14 
11

The BIA also acknowledged Albornoz’s claims that he was attacked and 

beaten by Chavez’s men on multiple occasions, but noted that Albornoz alleged 

only one instance of sexual assault on December 16, 2001. In sum, the BIA 

concluded that the totality of the circumstances did not support Albornoz’s

argument that any competent counsel would have pursued an asylum claim based 

on sexual orientation, whether actual or imputed. Albornoz also failed to identify 

any error in the BIA’s prior decision insofar as it addressed the IJ’s adverse 

credibility finding. Finally, the BIA again declined to reopen the case sua sponte. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Reopen

An alien has a right to effective assistance of counsel in removal 

proceedings and may challenge a violation of this right by filing a motion to 

reopen. See Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2005). To 

obtain reopening based on ineffective assistance of counsel, an alien must show 

that “the performance of counsel [was] so inadequate that there is a reasonable 

probability that but for the attorney’s error, the outcome of the proceedings would 

have been different.” Id. at 1274.

3

 3

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Jiang v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). “Our review is limited to determining whether the 

BIA exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Id.

Case: 13-10807 Date Filed: 09/30/2014 Page: 11 of 14 
12

Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the merits of 

Albornoz’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

4

 The 

record as a whole supports the BIA’s determination that Albornoz failed to show 

that Castillo-Hronsky’s performance was deficient or that her performance 

prejudiced the outcome of his removal proceedings. See Dakane, 399 F.3d 

at 1274. 

Albornoz did not allege in his motion to reopen that Castillo-Hronsky knew 

that he was homosexual or that he feared persecution in Venezuela for that reason. 

Although Albornoz alleged that Chavez’s men had called him a “fag” and had 

forced him to perform oral sex, his motion to reopen and its accompanying 

affidavits did not indicate that Albornoz told Castillo-Hronsky of these facts or that 

she knew them. Moreover, Castillo-Hronsky stated, and Albornoz did not dispute,

that Albornoz had told her about his ex-wife, had described Kammer as his friend 

and boss, and had only identified political opinion as the reason for his persecution. 

Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the BIA abused its discretion in 

concluding that Castillo-Hronsky was not incompetent in failing to raise a ground 

for relief of which she had no knowledge.

 4

To the extent Albornoz challenges the BIA’s discretionary decision to deny sua sponte

reopening, we lack jurisdiction to review this claim. See Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 

1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 2008). Although the BIA originally evaluated the merits of Albornoz’s 

ineffective-assistance claim in the context of whether to deny sua sponte reopening, the BIA 

subsequently made clear in its denial of the motion to reconsider that this analysis also supported 

its decision to deny the motion to reopen. Thus, we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s 

disposition of Albornoz’s ineffective-assistance claim as it relates to his motion to reopen. 

Case: 13-10807 Date Filed: 09/30/2014 Page: 12 of 14 
13

Furthermore, the BIA was within its discretion in concluding that Albornoz

failed to show prejudice. In discrediting Albornoz’s testimony, the IJ expressed 

doubt as to whether the December 16, 2001 incident of sexual abuse by Chavez’s 

men had happened. As the BIA pointed out, there was no reasonable probability 

that any additional testimony that the alleged December 16 attack was also 

motivated by Albornoz’s sexual orientation would have altered the IJ’s adverse 

credibility finding and subsequent denial of relief. 

B. Motion to Reconsider

A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of law or fact in the prior 

BIA decision and must be supported by pertinent authority. See INA 

§ 240(c)(6)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 

1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1)). A motion to 

reconsider that merely reiterates arguments previously presented to the BIA does 

not specify errors of fact or law “as required for a successful motion to reconsider.” 

Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329.5

Here, the BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Albornoz’s motion 

to reconsider based on its determination that Albornoz had not identified any error 

in its prior decision on the motion to reopen. We are not persuaded by his 

contention that the BIA failed to properly assess the “substantial and credible” 

 

5

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Id.

at 1328.

Case: 13-10807 Date Filed: 09/30/2014 Page: 13 of 14 
14

evidence of Castillo-Hronsky’s incompetent and prejudicial performance. As the 

BIA explained, it did not ignore Albornoz’s claims that he was gang raped and 

called a “fag” or a “faggot.” Rather, the BIA pointed out that, until the motion to 

reconsider, Albornoz had never made a claim that Castillo-Hronsky should have 

raised a sexual orientation persecution claim based on these aspects of the 

December 16, 2001 event. 

To the extent that Albornoz argues the BIA mistakenly found that he had 

failed to allege sexual abuse in his motion to reopen, Albornoz mischaracterizes 

the BIA’s findings. The BIA determined that Albornoz had not asserted that 

Castillo-Hronsky knew that Albornoz was forced to perform oral sex on Chavez’s 

men while they called him a “fag.” This was not factual error. Because 

Albornoz’s motion to reconsider did not specify any errors of law or fact in the 

BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its 

discretion in denying reconsideration. See Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329. 

III. CONCLUSION

Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Albornoz’s motions

to reopen and reconsider, we deny his petitions for review. 

PETITIONS DENIED.

Case: 13-10807 Date Filed: 09/30/2014 Page: 14 of 14